The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was defeated, which led to the loss of all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) save the coastlands. Although attempts at reconciliation after the East-West Schism between the Catholic Western Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church had failed, Alexius I hoped for a positive response from Urban II and got it, although it turned out to be more expansive and less helpful than he had expected.

My question is 'why did the Emperor appeal to the Popes of Europe for aid and not the Lords of Europe'?

Pope at the Council of Clermont

« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 05:54:04 PM by ignatius »

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was defeated, which led to the loss of all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) save the coastlands. Although attempts at reconciliation after the East-West Schism between the Catholic Western Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church had failed, Alexius I hoped for a positive response from Urban II and got it, although it turned out to be more expansive and less helpful than he had expected.

My question is 'why did the Emperor appeal to the Popes of Europe for aid and not the Lords of Europe'?

Pope at the Council of Clermont

Are you so sure he didn't?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

We actually discussed Western Europe during the Middle Ages in my World History class today and I think one of the reasons why he appealed to the Pope is because most of the governments in Europe were decentralized and kings had to depend a lot on the rest of the aristocracy and they did not have the power that they later had after the rise of the merchant class in Europe. The thing that unified these countries was the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church ruled in a lot of ways over Western Europe and the kings would listen to the Pope since he was their spiritual head. With an appeal to the Pope, then he could appeal to the kings who would listen and send aid.

We actually discussed Western Europe during the Middle Ages in my World History class today and I think one of the reasons why he appealed to the Pope is because most of the governments in Europe were decentralized and kings had to depend a lot on the rest of the aristocracy and they did not have the power that they later had after the rise of the merchant class in Europe. The thing that unified these countries was the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church ruled in a lot of ways over Western Europe and the kings would listen to the Pope since he was their spiritual head. With an appeal to the Pope, then he could appeal to the kings who would listen and send aid.

I think that is as good an answer as we are going to get actually. Real temporal power didn't about materialize until the 12th and 13th Century though but I think you are correct, by appealing to the 'Church' the Emperor had the ear of everyone in the West at that time. And remember, at that time, nothing had been dogmatized so everything could have been fixed... perhaps not now.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

As the previous poster averred, the Holy Roman Empire was neither, Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, and the Byzantine Emperor knew it.

Neither was the Emperor.

Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

In Emperor Alexios' mind, the pope was a Byzantine official, so it was natural that he should correspond with him. What some historians, according to the series, believed he was looking for were a couple hundred mercenaries just to drive back the Turks from Anatolia. He definitely was not interested in the Holy Land or in getting "assistance" from a rag-tag mob of popular rabble with objectives entirely different from his own (the People's Crusade, which preceded the pope's official army) or a bunch of Normans, who in 1079 had been responsible for Byzantine losses in Italy. It would be interesting to see the actual text of the letter, but I imagine it has been lost, as have the actual texts of most historically momentous documents.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

In Emperor Alexios' mind, the pope was a Byzantine official, so it was natural that he should correspond with him. What some historians, according to the series, believed he was looking for were a couple hundred mercenaries just to drive back the Turks from Anatolia. He definitely was not interested in the Holy Land or in getting "assistance" from a rag-tag mob of popular rabble with objectives entirely different from his own (the People's Crusade, which preceded the pope's official army) or a bunch of Normans, who in 1079 had been responsible for Byzantine losses in Italy. It would be interesting to see the actual text of the letter, but I imagine it has been lost, as have the actual texts of most historically momentous documents.

There are a few accounts of men that were at Clairmont when the call was made by Urban II, but as to the official proclamation, it has been lost. Some of the accounts differ with each other, so that makes it a little difficult, too.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Isa actually has a good point here. There's really nothing remarkable about Alexios sending diplomats to Urban II; and it's actually quite unlikely that Alexios didn't send delegations to other authorities. We just happen to know about this delegation, since Urban II used it (later on) as a pretext in his famous sermon to call on the warring factions of the West to unite against a common infidel enemy.

All of the sources we have from the Komnenian period show that the Emperors regularly sent all kinds diplomatic envoys (and spies) to Lombard, Frankish, Norman, Gothic, Bulgar, Avar, Alanian, Rus', Cuman, Catalan, etc. warlords, kings, and religious authorities. Reaching out to Urban fits into a typical strategy: If you have an enemy (the Normans in Italy & the Balkans), send someone to talk to those in power on that enemy's flank. Of course, in this case, it backfired, since Alexios wasn't asking for what he got, although he made the most of it.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 04:06:23 PM by pensateomnia »

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

If one defines Franks as Carolingians and their predecessors, this could be seen to be the case. However, the Normans were more openly hostile to the Byzantines. As a power, the "Franks" (aka Carolingians and company) were out of the picture by the time of the First Crusade, having evolved into various forms of French.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

If one defines Franks as Carolingians and their predecessors, this could be seen to be the case. However, the Normans were more openly hostile to the Byzantines. As a power, the "Franks" (aka Carolingians and company) were out of the picture by the time of the First Crusade, having evolved into various forms of French.

Although the Constantinopolitan writers simply call them "arrogant Italians." I'm actually not making that up.

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

It wasn't just that. The Franks had a grudge against the Byzantines because the Emperor refused to grant Charlemagne a title equal to his own. In effect, this was the Byzantines' refusal to recognize a fait accompli--the division of the old Roman Empire into two separate and distinct political entities. Nationalism had, in fact, taken hold in the West, and was one of the driving forces behind the Crusades.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 04:44:09 PM by Cymbyz »

Logged

The end of the world is as near as the day of your death;watch and pray.

I would hesitate to use the term nationalism when referring to Western barbarians or Eastern Romans and company. It would be an anachronism, since our definition of nationalism arises from a 19th century context and the philosophy of romanticism.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I would hesitate to use the term nationalism when referring to Western barbarians or Eastern Romans and company. It would be an anachronism, since our definition of nationalism arises from a 19th century context and the philosophy of romanticism.

I would hesitate to use the term nationalism when referring to Western barbarians or Eastern Romans and company. It would be an anachronism, since our definition of nationalism arises from a 19th century context and the philosophy of romanticism.

I would hesitate to use the term barbarian.

M.

I would not hesitate to use the term barbarian, for that is how they truly acted during the crusades, and I am descended from those same barbarians.

If one defines Franks as Carolingians and their predecessors, this could be seen to be the case. However, the Normans were more openly hostile to the Byzantines. As a power, the "Franks" (aka Carolingians and company) were out of the picture by the time of the First Crusade, having evolved into various forms of French.

Are you sure they were Carolingians? I thought they were Capetians at this point.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

You must remember that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. While Charlemagne was putting the empire together (it didn't survive as a unified entity much beyond his grandchildren), the Vikings were making their presence felt along the west European shores and in the British Isles. The Normans were descended from the Vikings who conquered northern France and subsequently took up the local dialects as their own tongues. Their descendents became involved in political intrigues all over western Europe, and were, indeed, heavily involved in the first Crusades.

BTW, in the same year as the Sack of Constantinople, the Norman kings of England lost control of continental Normandy; the only part of the historic Duchy of Normandy that remained to them was the Channel Islands, which are today a Crown Dependency of the British Sovereign as Duke of Normandy.

Logged

The end of the world is as near as the day of your death;watch and pray.